Debeo Summa Credo: DeaH: Debeo Summa Credo: Although I'm still voting for Obama, Lovitz is right somewhat. The "Buffett Rule" is bullshiat, and Obama knows it.

No, it's not. The Buffet Rule is directed at people who earn the bulk of their yearly income from capital gains or bonuses in excess of salary. This does not apply to most people, not even most people who make six or more figures. But, the people for whom it does apply control an inordinate amount of the nation's wealth. They receive an inordinate number of benefits of being an American citizen than most people, yet they pay the tiniest percentage of taxes except all but the very poor.

The Buffet Rule is needed, and it won't affect most people. The bullshiat part is that Obama does not appear to realize that most people, including news people who make six figures, do not understand how this works. He needs to spend some time getting his message across more clearly.

The bullshiat part is that most of that investemnt income is already taxed at the corporate level, then taxed again at 15% when received by the investor. This is in contrast to income from an investment in a non-incorporated business, like a sole proprietorship. You can't compare the 15% rate to the 35% ordinary rate without recognizing that an additional bite was taken out of the income subject to the 15% rate. If the effective corporate rate is 25%, then the all in rate is 36.25% (25% at corp level, plus 15% of the remainder when dividended).

Although many farkers are not, Obama is smart enough to know this but he doesn't acknowledge it because it is useful politically to claim investors are getting a break. Which is why it is bullshiat. If you want to tax the rich more, that's fine, but he's clouding it with bullshiat.

No, that argument will not wash. If I work for a company, the money they pay me is already taxed before they pay me. Somehow, no one screams "Double taxation!!!" before swooning onto a convenient fainting couch. If I have a pile of money, I am not paying any new taxes on that pile, only on the NEW income created by that pile. The fact is that we now have a system that says you cannot keep as much of your money if you earn it from your own hard work than if you send your excess money out to earn it for you.

And that doesn't even address the shenanigans of top earners being paid the bulk of their earnings in "bonuses" instead of wages to lower their effective tax rates. No, the double tax argument will not work. It is as factually wrong as it is hollow.

Mugato: Cythraul: Dennis Miller was never really that funny. He was just good at being an asshole, which was kinda funny to watch. So I guess that's kinda like being a comedian.

He's not popular around here but I used to be a fan until he went batshiat crazy on 9/12. John Lovitz is just being a typical rich person who doesn't consider himself rich.

"I'm champagne and you're shiat!"

Sun Worshiping Dog Launcher: However, you've got a loophole in your argument. You've stated that Jon Lovitz has "produced something of value". Do you have evidence of that somewhere? I saw SNL, News Radio and The Wedding Singer. Jon Lovitz produces many things, but value, or entertainment for that matter, is not among them.

That's a stupid non-argument. If the guy wasn't entertaining at all, he'd have had no career at all. That he did appear on TV and in movies is evidence that he's entertaining enough to someone that he kept getting work.

You may not like zucchini, but other people do.

Sun Worshiping Dog Launcher: You could have a point: If a person produces nothing of value, yet gets rich doing it, should they have to pay more in taxes?

Another non-agument. No one gets rich by doing nothing. A person may inherit wealth, but even to sustain that wealth takes producing something.

It doesn't matter if the person makes baby formula or is a vapid character on a reality show, the notion that taxing people at different rates dependent on your (or someone else's) arbitrary judgment is the antithesis if "equal treatment under the law", and betrays an attitude that taxes are punishments.

Sun Worshiping Dog Launcher: An interesting conundrum, but one that is likely above your pay grade since you don't seem to grasp how successful businesses are dependent on taxpayer funded infrastructure to be successful.

As if that infrastructure wouldn't exist without government. Not only would it exist, but it would be cheaper and run better because there wouldn't be a dozen committees made of highly-paid non-people who wouldn't know their asses from asphalt to stall the process of building and maintaining it.

Debeo Summa Credo: The bullshiat part is that most of that investemnt income is already taxed at the corporate level, then taxed again at 15% when received by the investor. This is in contrast to income from an investment in a non-incorporated business, like a sole proprietorship. You can't compare the 15% rate to the 35% ordinary rate without recognizing that an additional bite was taken out of the income subject to the 15% rate. If the effective corporate rate is 25%, then the all in rate is 36.25% (25% at corp level, plus 15% of the remainder when dividended)..

gunga galunga: Cythraul: Dennis Miller was never really that funny. He was just good at being an asshole, which was kinda funny to watch. So I guess that's kinda like being a comedian.

I used to like Dennis Miller's stand up for the arcane references, and I always enjoyed his "I don't want to go off on a rant" rants. But he lost me when he became a Fox News shill.

I like him on MNF expressly for the arcane references.

Lovitz needs to stay out of politics just like Alec Baldwin, Streisand, and all the rest. Just entertain me, that is what you do.

If Jon Lovitz wants attention it should be limited to Fox, Kickstarter or Netflix seeking to renew The Critic.

rapidbunny: Former Saturday Night Live star turned conservative activist Victoria Jackson appeared on Showbiz Tonight to defend her opinion that the kiss between Glee characters Kurt and Blaine was "sickening."

She's just getting fatter and fatter. She's like that orange Angry Bird. Only she's not deflating.

Too slow, Jack!

antidisestablishmentarianism: I wouldn't say he has gone full Dennis Miller because of one comment.

Its the old "where the fark did all my money go, and who the hell is FICA?" once you make a shiat ton of money you get fiscally conservative, I think the beatles were the first to start this back in the day.

/tax man

Hemorhoids explain most such conversions.

Wayne 985: The top tax rate used to be 80% under Eisenhower. It's now in the low 30s and Obama wants to raise it only slightly on the richest Americans.

yes, but to whom was the 80% rate applied? the problem with the tax rates now is that people making 85k are paying at the 28% rate (marginally). the people who were paying 80% (marginally) in the eisenhower years were only paying that on income in excess of one or two million dollars.

DeaH: Debeo Summa Credo: Although I'm still voting for Obama, Lovitz is right somewhat. The "Buffett Rule" is bullshiat, and Obama knows it.

No, it's not. The Buffet Rule is directed at people who earn the bulk of their yearly income from capital gains or bonuses in excess of salary. This does not apply to most people, not even most people who make six or more figures. But, the people for whom it does apply control an inordinate amount of the nation's wealth. They receive an inordinate number of benefits of being an American citizen than most people, yet they pay the tiniest percentage of taxes except all but the very poor.

The Buffet Rule is needed, and it won't affect most people. The bullshiat part is that Obama does not appear to realize that most people, including news people who make six figures, do not understand how this works. He needs to spend some time getting his message across more clearly.

Obama couldn't even get this through a Democratically controlled Senate.

The really interesting thing is that it may 'only' generate 40-45 billion more. This is a drop in the bucket compared to the 5 trillion Obama has flushed.

Frankly, there need to be tax increases to pay for all of the services. There also need to be serious cuts as well. The Dems pay lip service to cuts but they never do anything substantive.

Skarekrough: Contrabulous Flabtraption: MY GOD! Someone dislikes Obama!!? This person must have lost their mind.

I don't think the story really is disliking Obama.

I think the story here is past-relevant comedian looking for something to wind up in the spotlight about.

And even then I would barely call it all that much of a story.

Well, as I understand it, Lovitz runs a comedy club - that comedy club has an area that the filmmaker Kevin Smith uses to host his live podcasting shows under his SModcast label. As part of using the place, Smith hosts a podcast called "The ABCs of SNL" with Lovitz and other SNL alums. I'm guessing this was part of one of those recordings.

Big 900: Really, I'm the only one who thought The Critic was farking hilarious?

The Critic was one of the funniest shows of the 90's. The characters were great, the jokes were great, the setting was great. I loved the show.

That said, right now, for this stupid tax thing, Lovitz stinks.

He's part of that middling rich - not wealthy but not middle class, the type who might or might not be affected by tax increases, but he'd probably not notice them the way we just shrug when the sales taxes go up a half a precent - it just happens. He's right there with the Bill o'Riley's of the world who are acting like they'll be destitute if they had to pay some more but they are really spitting about the principal of the thing.

proteus_b: Wayne 985: The top tax rate used to be 80% under Eisenhower. It's now in the low 30s and Obama wants to raise it only slightly on the richest Americans.

yes, but to whom was the 80% rate applied? the problem with the tax rates now is that people making 85k are paying at the 28% rate (marginally). the people who were paying 80% (marginally) in the eisenhower years were only paying that on income in excess of one or two million dollars.

And it's even worse in some states like California where the top tax rate(9.3% currently, unless it's changed again) starts at ~43k and the brackets are an inch wide.

Opeth1429: Obama couldn't even get this through a Democratically controlled Senate.

I would'nt call a 51/49 senate with two of those 51 being Joe Liberman and Ben Nelson "Democratic" as much as I'd call it "Dem-Light."

saintstryfe: He's part of that middling rich - not wealthy but not middle class, the type who might or might not be affected by tax increases, but he'd probably not notice them the way we just shrug when the sales taxes go up a half a precent - it just happens. He's right there with the Bill o'Riley's of the world who are acting like they'll be destitute if they had to pay some more but they are really spitting about the principal of the thing.

God forbid someone get upset about being penalized more for working hard to make money.

DeaH: Debeo Summa Credo: DeaH: Debeo Summa Credo: The bullshiat part is that most of that investemnt income is already taxed at the corporate level, then taxed again at 15% when received by the investor. This is in contrast to income from an investment in a non-incorporated business, like a sole proprietorship. You can't compare the 15% rate to the 35% ordinary rate without recognizing that an additional bite was taken out of the income subject to the 15% rate. If the effective corporate rate is 25%, then the all in rate is 36.25% (25% at corp level, plus 15% of the remainder when dividended).

Although many farkers are not, Obama is smart enough to know this but he doesn't acknowledge it because it is useful politically to claim investors are getting a break. Which is why it is bullshiat. If you want to tax the rich more, that's fine, but he's clouding it with bullshiat.

No, that argument will not wash. If I work for a company, the money they pay me is already taxed before they pay me. Somehow, no one screams "Double taxation!!!" before swooning onto a convenient fainting couch. If I have a pile of money, I am not paying any new taxes on that pile, only on the NEW income created by that pile. The fact is that we now have a system that says you cannot keep as much of your money if you earn it from your own hard work than if you send your excess money out to earn it for you.

And that doesn't even address the shenanigans of top earners being paid the bulk of their earnings in "bonuses" instead of wages to lower their effective tax rates. No, the double tax argument will not work. It is as factually wrong as it is hollow.
...

Totally wrong, let me enlighten you:

When the company pays you, they get to deduct that expense from their taxable income. So that money is not taxed twice - only once, when you receive it.

A company does not get to deduct dividends from taxable income. So the cash dividended is taxed at the corporate level and then again at the investor level.

If the company you work for has $100 in revenues, and $60 in expenses (your salary), they have $40 in taxable income. They pay, say 25% tax (avg is in high 20s% in US), leaving $30 in after tax income. If they dividend that $30, the investor will pay 15% on that, or $4.50. So, of the $40 in pretax income at the company, $25.50 ends up in the investors pocket, meaning an effective all in tax rate of 36%.

Persnickety: Debeo Summa Credo: The bullshiat part is that most of that investemnt income is already taxed at the corporate level, then taxed again at 15% when received by the investor. This is in contrast to income from an investment in a non-incorporated business, like a sole proprietorship. You can't compare the 15% rate to the 35% ordinary rate without recognizing that an additional bite was taken out of the income subject to the 15% rate. If the effective corporate rate is 25%, then the all in rate is 36.25% (25% at corp level, plus 15% of the remainder when dividended)..

[farm1.staticflickr.com image 550x751]

Ah yes, people never stop posting that Tom the Dancing Bug Cartoon no matter how badly it misses the point.

Does the Plumber pay income tax at the business level and again when he takes cash out for personal expenses like CDs? Does the record store owner pay income taxes at the business level and again when he takes cash out for personal use such as making car payments? No, but the stockholder of the bank has to pay income tax on the dividends he received even though the bank paid income taxes on the income it earned, without being able to deduct the dividends paid to the stockholder.

You can argue that an extra level of tax is appropriate because of limited liability or just because you want more progressivity, but to argue that investment income is taxed at a lower rate than ordinary income is flawed unless you consider corporate taxes.

saintstryfe: Opeth1429: Obama couldn't even get this through a Democratically controlled Senate.

I would'nt call a 51/49 senate with two of those 51 being Joe Liberman and Ben Nelson "Democratic" as much as I'd call it "Dem-Light."

I understand your point but it's still dead, regardless of the margin.

As for Nelson and Lieberman- they aren't exactly voting with Republicans every time, are they? If they were, the President would be signing lots of vetos.

Debeo Summa Credo: Does the Plumber pay income tax at the business level and again when he takes cash out for personal expenses like CDs? Does the record store owner pay income taxes at the business level and again when he takes cash out for personal use such as making car payments? No, but the stockholder of the bank has to pay income tax on the dividends he received even though the bank paid income taxes on the income it earned, without being able to deduct the dividends paid to the stockholder.

You can argue that an extra level of tax is appropriate because of limited liability or just because you want more progressivity, but to argue that investment income is taxed at a lower rate than ordinary income is flawed unless you consider corporate taxes.

Uhm, a little fuzzy on this since it's been a while, but since the income passes through to the owner of the sole proprietorship, it doesn't really matter. The business isn't a tax paying entity, the person is. Corporations are tax paying entities. There is an extra tax because money is being distributed from one tax paying entity to another. The only difference between a dividend and an owners draw is the owner is the one receiving the draw(aka the dividend) so he's already paying tax on it personally.

Lucky LaRue: timoteo2: He's still a liberal, still a Democrat, and not off the rails wrong. Obama is lying. Deal with it, ex-libs.

What do you dread more? Four more years of Obama, or 4 years of the double-talking, left-leaning, middle-of-the-road Republican candidate Mitt Romney?

How about people who think there's a meaningful difference between those two terminal diseases? These kind of people scare the beejesus outta me.

You can't be "unfunny" when you were never funny in the first place.

Lernaeus: Wayne 985: Waahhh, I live in a country that's allowed me to become rich and famous and now they're asking that I give back. Waahhh.

I don't get that attitude at all.

If you produce something of value to lots of other people, and they buy it, and you make a lot of money, what exactly do you still owe them? Did you not provide the good or service that they paid for? Did they not think their lives were even marginally better for buying it? Where is it written that, say, Fred Smith owes me or anyone else something more than what I paid for, i.e. getting packages to their destinations safely and on time?

Or do you think that goods and services should be sold at tiny fractions of a cent above cost so that producers don't make more than a socially acceptable income? How much is that? Who decides? And who decides the income-decider's income?

By your rationale, we should have no taxes. The truth of the matter is that a functioning nation needs them to survive and the people who have the most (while also contributing some of the least) have an ethical obligation to pay a higher rate.

Do you honestly think a rich actor shouldn't pay more than a struggling teacher?

bhcompy: Debeo Summa Credo: Does the Plumber pay income tax at the business level and again when he takes cash out for personal expenses like CDs? Does the record store owner pay income taxes at the business level and again when he takes cash out for personal use such as making car payments? No, but the stockholder of the bank has to pay income tax on the dividends he received even though the bank paid income taxes on the income it earned, without being able to deduct the dividends paid to the stockholder.

You can argue that an extra level of tax is appropriate because of limited liability or just because you want more progressivity, but to argue that investment income is taxed at a lower rate than ordinary income is flawed unless you consider corporate taxes.

Uhm, a little fuzzy on this since it's been a while, but since the income passes through to the owner of the sole proprietorship, it doesn't really matter. The business isn't a tax paying entity, the person is. Corporations are tax paying entities. There is an extra tax because money is being distributed from one tax paying entity to another. The only difference between a dividend and an owners draw is the owner is the one receiving the draw(aka the dividend) so he's already paying tax on it personally.

Right, there is another tax paying entity paying a chunk to uncle sam before the investor gets his bite. That's my point.

You earn $100 - you pay ordinary income taxes on $100, or $35 at top ordinary rates, leaving you $65.
You invest in a sole proprietorship or partnership and your share of earnings, after any salary paid to yourself if you work in the business, is $100 - you pay taxes on that $100 of income from that investment, or $35 at top ordinary rates, leaving your $65 in return on your investment.
You invest in a corporation and your proportionate share of earnings is $100, the corporation pays taxes (at say 25%) of $25, and you pay $11.25 in dividend taxes, leaving your $63.25 in return on your investment. The cash in your pocket at the end of the day is less than if your invested in a non-corporate entity!

Don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing against the second level of tax or whining that it's double taxation, just pointing out that people who whine that dividend and capital gains tax rates are less than ordinary tax rates are missing an important piece of the puzzle and comparing apples to oranges.

Debeo Summa Credo: Does the Plumber pay income tax at the business level and again when he takes cash out for personal expenses like CDs? Does the record store owner pay income taxes at the business level and again when he takes cash out for personal use such as making car payments? No, but the stockholder of the bank has to pay income tax on the dividends he received even though the bank paid income taxes on the income it earned, without being able to deduct the dividends paid to the stockholder.

You can argue that an extra level of tax is appropriate because of limited liability or just because you want more progressivity, but to argue that investment income is taxed at a lower rate than ordinary income is flawed unless you consider corporate taxes.

Egads, are you really this ignorant about basic points of what a corporation is? To answer your questions: Sometimes those businesses do pay extra taxes, but - and this is the key point - if and only if they are incorporated. No corporation, no corporate taxation. Remember, corporations are people too so that means they pay taxes just like people do.

Note that the decision to incorporate is entirely up to the owners of that business. They can choose to incorporate or not. Many law firms, for example, do not incorporate and so the partners in the firm share in the profits directly without corporate taxation, just like the plumber. The risk of doing so, however, is that owners also are personally liable for all the debts and judgments that the business may accrue. You could lose your house, car, cash, investments, etc. if something goes wrong. Corporations, otoh, issue stock to owners. Stockholders can never lose more than the value of that stock, even if they run the company into the ground or if the business is ordered to be liquidated to pay debts or for bankruptcy. Your personal assets are safe.

That's just an overview. There are different levels of stock and different kinds of partnerships that reduce your personal liabilities in certain cases. The key point is that the corporation was an invention that allows great risks to be taken in business without the owners fearing they may lose all their personal wealth if it goes bad. With that comes additional taxation since the corporation in essence is a separate legal entity from the owners.

If you want to avoid corporate taxes, invest (i.e. become a partner) in a business that is not incorporated. Pretty simple really.

Hold on now subby. You have to have been funny at some point to become unfunny later. Lovitz was never funny.

My brother met him at the Playboy mansion a few years back. He said Lovitz acted like a total dick.

/cool bro story bro

Persnickety: Debeo Summa Credo: Does the Plumber pay income tax at the business level and again when he takes cash out for personal expenses like CDs? Does the record store owner pay income taxes at the business level and again when he takes cash out for personal use such as making car payments? No, but the stockholder of the bank has to pay income tax on the dividends he received even though the bank paid income taxes on the income it earned, without being able to deduct the dividends paid to the stockholder.

You can argue that an extra level of tax is appropriate because of limited liability or just because you want more progressivity, but to argue that investment income is taxed at a lower rate than ordinary income is flawed unless you consider corporate taxes.

Egads, are you really this ignorant about basic points of what a corporation is? To answer your questions: Sometimes those businesses do pay extra taxes, but - and this is the key point - if and only if they are incorporated. No corporation, no corporate taxation. Remember, corporations are people too so that means they pay taxes just like people do.

Note that the decision to incorporate is entirely up to the owners of that business. They can choose to incorporate or not. Many law firms, for example, do not incorporate and so the partners in the firm share in the profits directly without corporate taxation, just like the plumber. The risk of doing so, however, is that owners also are personally liable for all the debts and judgments that the business may accrue. You could lose your house, car, cash, investments, etc. if something goes wrong. Corporations, otoh, issue stock to owners. Stockholders can never lose more than the value of that stock, even if they run the company into the ground or if the business is ordered to be liquidated to pay debts or for bankruptcy. Your personal assets are safe.

That's just an overview. There are different levels of stock and different kinds of partnerships that reduce your personal liabilities in certain cases. The key point is that the corporation was an invention that allows great risks to be taken in business without the owners fearing they may lose all their personal wealth if it goes bad. With that comes additional taxation since the corporation in essence is a separate legal entity from the owners.

If you want to avoid corporate taxes, invest (i.e. become a partner) in a business that is not incorporated. Pretty simple really.
...

Agreed pretty much. Well, except for your insult. When you invest in a corporation you are subjecting yourself to two levels of tax on income that investment may earn. Like I said, I'm not personally against this extra layer of tax, (for the limited liability reasons you mentioned) but people just need to understand that it exists and that income of a corporation has more taxes taken out before it gets in the pockets of owners than income in a partnership or sole proprietorship, and that its stupid to compare the 15% dividend/cap gains rate to ordinary tax rates without recognizing the second level of tax.

It appears you understand this, and I commend you for it. But it makes me quesiton why you post that ridiculous comic since it contradicts your understanding of corporate and dividend taxes!

Mugato: There hasn't been such an effeminate Jew so far in the closet since Anne Frank.

I'm not sure what your point is, but your attack is both homophobic and irrelevant to the topic at hand.

SpectroBoy: EnviroDude: One would hope that a republican as POTUS would not duplicate Obama's out of control spending. Funny, because senator Obama made some very good points when Bush was spending out of control (Obama said something akin to enslaving our children due to the debt).

I don't suppose Obama's spending has anything to do with inheriting two wars and the housing and economic collapse.

Also the idea that Republicans are fiscal conservatives is laughable. They just prefer to spend our money differently (mostly on killing foreigners instead of medicine for our own people)

Idiots like you are who the dems prey on to spread bullshiat.

RoyBatty: Mugato: There hasn't been such an effeminate Jew so far in the closet since Anne Frank.

I'm not sure what your point is, but your attack is both homophobic and irrelevant to the topic at hand.



In the interest of full disclosure, I found it to be one of the funniest rips I've read lately. Not quite up there with Jimmy Kimmel's "Keith Olbermann has burned more bridges than the arsonist of Madison County," but certainly up there.

Subby fails hard; Jon Lovitz isn't a conservative, he's a liberal who dislikes Obama. This hardly makes him unique as I've met many people with similar views.

Besides, Lovitz will always be on my "cool motherfarkers" list for smashing Andy Dick's face. If only he'd do the same to other obnoxious celebs like Kanye West and Kim Kardashian.

HopScotchNSoda: RoyBatty: Mugato: There hasn't been such an effeminate Jew so far in the closet since Anne Frank.

I'm not sure what your point is, but your attack is both homophobic and irrelevant to the topic at hand.

[farm3.staticflickr.com image 410x361]

In the interest of full disclosure, I found it to be one of the funniest rips I've read lately. Not quite up there with Jimmy Kimmel's "Keith Olbermann has burned more bridges than the arsonist of Madison County," but certainly up there.

It's apparently Greg Giraldo said during a comedy roast of Jon Lovitz



Intriguingly the google search snippet says effeminate but click on the page and it's feminine.

Regardless, it just seems inappropriate in this thread, largely because I think subby failed terribly on his headline. Lovitz seems pissed off with Obama, but nothing is there that indicates he is a conservative. So Mugato's headline just seemed a gratuitous dogpile.

Lernaeus: Sun Worshiping Dog Launcher: However, you've got a loophole in your argument. You've stated that Jon Lovitz has "produced something of value". Do you have evidence of that somewhere? I saw SNL, News Radio and The Wedding Singer. Jon Lovitz produces many things, but value, or entertainment for that matter, is not among them.

That's a stupid non-argument. If the guy wasn't entertaining at all, he'd have had no career at all. That he did appear on TV and in movies is evidence that he's entertaining enough to someone that he kept getting work.

You may not like zucchini, but other people do.

Sun Worshiping Dog Launcher: You could have a point: If a person produces nothing of value, yet gets rich doing it, should they have to pay more in taxes?

Another non-agument. No one gets rich by doing nothing. A person may inherit wealth, but even to sustain that wealth takes producing something.

It doesn't matter if the person makes baby formula or is a vapid character on a reality show, the notion that taxing people at different rates dependent on your (or someone else's) arbitrary judgment is the antithesis if "equal treatment under the law", and betrays an attitude that taxes are punishments.

Sun Worshiping Dog Launcher: An interesting conundrum, but one that is likely above your pay grade since you don't seem to grasp how successful businesses are dependent on taxpayer funded infrastructure to be successful.

As if that infrastructure wouldn't exist without government. Not only would it exist, but it would be cheaper and run better because there wouldn't be a dozen committees made of highly-paid non-people who wouldn't know their asses from asphalt to stall the process of building and maintaining it.

Right right, all of the infrastructure would exist without government. It's just a coincidence that none of it did. Your hypothetical world in which corporations raise armies to protect roads and power grids they built from invaders would exist, if not for the inconvenient fact that it doesn't.

There was a time before government that served at the behest of the people. Where those with the money determined how everyone's lives played out without the people getting any day. It was called "feudalism" and everyone died a painful early death.

I prefer democracy, where public resources are controlled by institutions set up for the purpose after a vote. But that's just me, I'm civilized like that.

RoyBatty: HopScotchNSoda: RoyBatty: Mugato: There hasn't been such an effeminate Jew so far in the closet since Anne Frank.I'm not sure what your point is, but your attack is both homophobic and irrelevant to the topic at hand.[farm3.staticflickr.com image 410x361]In the interest of full disclosure, I found it to be one of the funniest rips I've read lately. Not quite up there with Jimmy Kimmel's "Keith Olbermann has burned more bridges than the arsonist of Madison County," but certainly up there.

There hasn't been such an effeminate Jew so far in the closet since Anne Frank.

Effeminacy describes traits in a human male, that are more often associated with traditional feminine nature, behaviour, mannerisms, style or gender roles rather than masculine nature, behaviour, mannerisms, style or roles.

It is a term frequently applied to womanly behavior, demeanor, style and appearance displayed by a male,

The line yahoo has down as "feminine Jew in the closet since Anne Frank" seems to make a lot more sense and comedic sense than "effeminate Jew in the closet since Anne Frank" which seems to make little sense since Anne Frank wasn't a male. The line "feminine Jew in the closet since Anne Frank" parses better, is more accurate, and yet is the same underlying dig but this time makes sense and fits as an apt comparison.

The same people who tell you that taxes should be abolished are the same people who tell you we should return to '50s-style economics.

There is no television show that John Lovitz can't ruin by his mere presence.

Close2TheEdge: There is no television show that John Lovitz can't ruin by his mere presence.

I watched Casino Jack on netflix last week - entertaining... Loosely based on real events. Lovitz played Adam Kidan (^), a character that pretty much sleazed his way through the entire movie. In the movie, he was brutally attacked by the character based on Gus Boulis (^) with a ball point pen, then he whined his way through the rest of the film.

/Acting!

R.I.P. Jon Lovitz

B.L.Z. Bub: Yes, Subby, except if you actually watch the video of his original comments, he says he voted for Obama.

He also used to play a pathological liar on television.

thecpt: Are people calling him a mean ol' jew trolling? He's Catholic. Honestly, that one mind f'd me too.

Where are you getting that info? I seem to remember Dana Carvey saying something to that effect a long time ago, but everything I can find says he's Jewish.

Lovitz will always get a pass from me for decking Andy Dick on behalf of the late Phil Hartman. Also The Critic was a very funny series.

So Lovitz disagrees with the President. This is news because....?

Karmacidal: Jesus fark

The uncensored version of that is my new band name.

egomann: I disagree with Mr. Lovitz on this one...

But he has a lifetime pass for kicking Andy Dick's ass.

So he has that going for him.

Yes indeed. And Andy Dick deserves a lifetime of ass kicking.